Was Burke right, about revolution that fought for abstractions like rights and that try to hunt tradition always end up with Tyranies and bloodbaths?
Obviously not but that won't stop edgelords on the internet from unironically defending long-extinct feudal aristocracies.
Revolution is for political changes, evolution is for social changes.
This is why the burgers republic lasted so much longer than the frogs.
>>1206491
>Obviously not
It hasn't been the case in the past century. Revolutions based on abstractions,always ended up alienating a huge chunk of the population,and causing bloodbaths,and deriving in some sort of Tyranny after the revolution happened. Change can be gradual btw,this way it creats a tradition,which had a more stable foundation.
>>1206481
The American revolution?
>>1206497
The American revolution was more about autonomy and representation than anything else. It didnt try to destroy tradition as the French and Bolsheviks did. There is quite a big difference there. Abstractions alone makes revolutions alienating,and tensions just scalate inside the society.
>>1206516
>>1206522
The american revolution was more about autonomy and secession than anything else. It dodnt try to destroy tradition and create a new society based on abdstractions (they were abstractions,but those abstractions didnt conflict with tradition directly. On the other hand the french revolution tried to kill tradition and create a society based on abstractions,and it ended up with things like the Vendee or the terror period. Burke makes a clear distintion between gradual changes,and overthrowing Tyranny and revolutions like the french one,which are based on bashing tradition
>>1206491
